Treatment of Severe COVID-19 with Convalescent Plasma in the Bronx, NYC

Therapeutic plasma exchange: A potential therapeutic modality for critically ill adults with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection

BACKGROUND

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection can be severe and fatal due to cytokine storm. Therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) potentially mitigates the harmful effects of such cytokines. We investigated the use of TPE, as rescue therapy, in patients with severe Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis on COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit and treated with TPE from April 17, 2020 to July 2, 2020. This group was compared with COVID-19 patients who received standard therapy without TPE. The following outcomes were analyzed: changes in laboratory parameters, length of hospital stay (LOS), days on mechanical ventilation, mortality at days 14 and overall mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 95 patients were included, among whom 47% (n = 45) received TPE. Patients who received TPE had reductions in C-reactive protein (P = .002), ferritin (P < .001) and interleukin-6 (P = .013). After employing entropy-balancing matching method, those on TPE were also more likely to discontinue inotropes (72% vs 21%; P < .001). However, they were more likely to be associated with longer LOS (23 vs 14 days; P = .002) and longer days on ventilatory support (14 vs 8 days; P < .001). Despite marginal mortality benefit at 14-days (7.9% vs 24%; P = .071), there was no significant differences in overall mortality (21% vs 31%; P = .315) between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

TPE was effective in reducing inflammatory markers in patients with severe COVID-19 infection, however, further research is warranted.

Direct modelling from GPS data reveals daily-activity-dependency of effective reproduction number in COVID-19 pandemic

During the COVID-19 pandemic, governments faced difficulties in implementing mobility restriction measures, as no clear quantitative relationship between human mobility and infection spread in large cities is known. We developed a model that enables quantitative estimations of the infection risk for individual places and activities by using smartphone GPS data for the Tokyo metropolitan area. The effective reproduction number is directly calculated from the number of infectious social contacts defined by the square of the population density at each location. The difference in the infection rate of daily activities is considered, where the 'stay-out' activity, staying at someplace neither home nor workplace, is more than 28 times larger than other activities. Also, the contribution to the infection strongly depends on location. We imply that the effective reproduction number is sufficiently suppressed if the highest-risk locations or activities are restricted. We also discuss the effects of the Delta variant and vaccination.

Human Identical Sequences, hyaluronan, and hymecromone ─ the new mechanism and management of COVID-19

COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2 has created formidable damage to public health and market economy. Currently, SARS-CoV-2 variants has exacerbated the transmission from person-to-person. Even after a great deal of investigation on COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 is still rampaging globally, emphasizing the urgent need to reformulate effective prevention and treatment strategies. Here, we review the latest research progress of COVID-19 and provide distinct perspectives on the mechanism and management of COVID-19. Specially, we highlight the significance of Human Identical Sequences (HIS), hyaluronan, and hymecromone ("Three-H") for the understanding and intervention of COVID-19. Firstly, HIS activate inflammation-related genes to influence COVID-19 progress through NamiRNA-Enhancer network. Accumulation of hyaluronan induced by HIS-mediated HAS2 upregulation is a substantial basis for clinical manifestations of COVID-19, especially in lymphocytopenia and pulmonary ground-glass opacity. Secondly, detection of plasma hyaluronan can be effective for evaluating the progression and severity of COVID-19. Thirdly, spike glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2 may bind to hyaluronan and further serve as an allergen to stimulate allergic reaction, causing sudden adverse effects after vaccination or the aggravation of COVID-19. Finally, antisense oligonucleotides of HIS or inhibitors of hyaluronan synthesis (hymecromone) or antiallergic agents could be promising therapeutic agents for COVID-19. Collectively, Three-H could hold the key to understand the pathogenic mechanism and create effective therapeutic strategies for COVID-19.

A phase 2 single center open label randomised control trial for convalescent plasma therapy in patients with severe COVID-19

A single center open label phase 2 randomised control trial (Clinical Trial Registry of India No. CTRI/2020/05/025209) was done to assess clinical and immunological benefits of passive immunization using convalescent plasma therapy. At the Infectious Diseases and Beleghata General Hospital in Kolkata, India, 80 patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 disease and fulfilling the inclusion criteria (aged more than 18 years, with either mild ARDS having PaO2/FiO2 200-300 or moderate ARDS having PaO2/FiO2 100-200, not on mechanical ventilation) were recruited and randomized into either standard of care (SOC) arm (N = 40) or the convalescent plasma therapy (CPT) arm (N = 40). Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality by day 30 of enrolment and immunological correlates of response to therapy if any, for which plasma abundance of a large panel of cytokines was quantitated before and after intervention to assess the effect of CPT on the systemic hyper-inflammation encountered in these patients. The secondary outcomes were recovery from ARDS and time taken to negative viral RNA PCR as well as to report any adverse reaction to plasma therapy. Transfused convalescent plasma was characterized in terms of its neutralizing antibody content as well as proteome. The trial was completed and it was found that primary outcome of all-cause mortality was not significantly different among severe COVID-19 patients with ARDS randomized to two treatment arms (Mantel-Haenszel Hazard Ratio 0.6731, 95% confidence interval 0.3010-1.505, with a P value of 0.3424 on Mantel-Cox Log-rank test). No adverse effect was reported with CPT. In severe COVID-19 patients with mild or moderate ARDS no significant clinical benefit was registered in this clinical trial with convalescent plasma therapy in terms of prespecified outcomes.

Efficacy and Safety of Convalescent Plasma for COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Convalescent plasma is currently being used in the treatment of COVID-19. Recommendations regarding use convalescent plasma in COVID-19 requires systematic summaries of available evidence. We searched the databases Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Epistomonikos, Medrxiv and Biorxiv. Title/abstract screening, full text screening and data abstraction were carried out in duplicate by two reviewers. Pooled effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random effects meta-analysis. GRADE tool was used to rate the certainty of evidence. Twenty two studies were found eligible for inclusion: nine randomized controlled trials and thirteen cohort studies. Low certainty evidence from eight RCTs showed inconclusive effects of convalescent plasma on mortality at 28 days (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.18). Low certainty evidence from thirteen cohort studies showed a reduction in mortality at 28 days (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.82). The pooled OR for clinical improvement was 1.07 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.34) representing low certainty evidence. Evidence from three RCTs showed inconclusive effect of CP on the need for mechanical ventilation (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.98). Four cohort studies reporting unadjusted estimates suggested a reduction in the need for mechanical ventilation with convalescent plasma (OR 0.80 95% CI 0.71 to 0.91, low certainty). Pooled estimates from 2 RCTs showed inconclusive effects of convalescent plasma on the proportion of patients with nondetectable levels of virus in nasopharyngeal specimens on day 3 (OR 3.62, 95% CI 0.43, 30.49, very low-quality evidence). The present review reports uncertain estimates on the efficacy of convalescent plasma in the treatment of COVID-19. There is low certainty evidence of a possible reduction in mortality and mechanical ventilation, a faster viral clearance and the absence of any serious adverse events. However, its efficacy for these outcomes requires evidence from good quality and adequately powered randomized controlled trials.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12288-021-01417-w.

Mortality Benefit of Convalescent Plasma in COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Importance/Background: With a scarcity of high-grade evidence for COVID-19 treatment, researchers and health care providers across the world have resorted to classical and historical interventions. Immunotherapy with convalescent plasma (CPT) is one such therapeutic option. Methods: A systematized search was conducted for articles published between December 2019 and 18th January 2021 focusing on convalescent plasma efficacy and safety in COVID-19. The primary outcomes were defined as mortality benefit in patients treated with convalescent plasma compared to standard therapy/placebo. The secondary outcome was pooled mortality rate and the adverse event rate in convalescent plasma-treated patients. Results: A total of 27,706 patients were included in the qualitative analysis, and a total of 3,262 (2,127 in convalescent plasma-treated patients and 1,135 in the non-convalescent plasma/control group) patients died. The quantitative synthesis in 23 studies showed that the odds of mortality in patients who received plasma therapy were significantly lower than those in patients who did not receive plasma therapy [odds ratio (OR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53-0.80, p < 0.0001, I 2 = 15%). The mortality benefit remains the same even for 14 trials/prospective studies (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43-0.81, p = 0.001, I 2 = 22%) as well as for nine case series/retrospective observational studies (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.65-0.94, p = 0.01, I 2 = 0%). However, in a subgroup analysis for 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), there was no statistically significant reduction in mortality between the CPT group compared to the non-CPT group (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.53-1.08, p = 0.13, I 2 = 7%). Furthermore, the sensitivity analysis of 10 RCTs, excluding the study with the highest statistical weight, displayed a lower mortality rate compared to that of non-CPT COVID-19 patients (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.42-0.97, p = 0.04, I 2 = 0%). The observed pooled mortality rate was 12.9% (95% CI 9.7-16.9%), and the pooled adverse event rate was 6.1% (95% CI 3.2-11.6), with significant heterogeneity. Conclusions and Relevance: Our systemic review and meta-analysis suggests that CPT could be an effective therapeutic option with promising evidence on the safety and reduced mortality in concomitant treatment for COVID-19 along with antiviral/antimicrobial drugs, steroids, and other supportive care. Future exploratory studies could benefit from more standardized reporting, especially in terms of the timing of interventions and clinically relevant outcomes, like days until discharge from the hospital and improvement of clinical symptoms.

["I better stay at home…"-health system decisions to support the use of routine healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic]

Hintergrund

In der COVID-19-Pandemie ging die Versorgung nichtübertragbarer Erkrankungen zeitweise deutlich zurück, auch weil Menschen Angst vor einer Ansteckung hatten. Wir führen eine Bestandsaufnahme zur organisationalen Gesundheitskompetenz in der Regelversorgung nichtübertragbarer Erkrankungen in der ersten Welle der COVID-19-Pandemie durch und fragen: Inwiefern wurden Menschen mit gesundheitlichen Beschwerden dabei unterstützt, gesundheitskompetente Entscheidungen für oder gegen die Inanspruchnahme von Versorgungsleistungen zu treffen?

Methodik

Strukturierende Inhaltsanalyse der Internetpräsenzen der Mitglieder der Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlich Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften (AWMF; n = 179), der kassen(zahn)ärztlichen Vereinigungen (K(Z)Ven; n = 38), ausgewählter Krankenkassen (n = 21), ausgewählter Behandlungseinrichtungen (n = 25) und überregionaler Anbieter von Gesundheitsinformationen (n = 5) zu Informationen und Angeboten zum Thema.

Ergebnisse

Die geprüften Internetpräsenzen informieren weitgehend rund um COVID-19, aber nur selten darüber, wie man sich bei einer (vermuteten) anderen Erkrankung in Bezug auf die Inanspruchnahme von Versorgungsleistungen verhält. 2 Portale von Anbietern von Gesundheitsinformationen, eine Krankenkasse, aber keine der KVen bieten explizite Entscheidungshilfen an. KVen weisen öfter, aber nicht durchgängig auf die generelle Möglichkeit von Videosprechstunden hin.

Diskussion

Für die meisten Patient*innen gab es damit keine gezielten Informationen zu dem Thema. Angesichts der Fortdauer der COVID-19-Pandemie gilt es, vorhandene vertrauenswürdige, qualitativ hochwertige Informations- und Beratungskapazitäten auszubauen und ihre Bekanntheit zu erhöhen, um gesundheitskompetente Entscheidungen auch in der Pandemie zu ermöglichen.

Pre-existing cerebrovascular disease and poor outcomes of COVID-19 hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Due to pro-inflammatory and hypercoagulation states, COVID-19 infection is believed to increase the risk of stroke and worsen the outcomes of the patients having pre-existing cerebrovascular diseases (CeVD). There is limited literature on prevalence of pre-existing CeVD in COVID-19 patients, and outcomes are unknown. The objective of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the outcomes of COVID-19 patients with pre-existing CeVD.

METHODS

English full-text-observational studies having data on epidemiological characteristics of COVID-19 patients were identified searching PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus using MeSH-terms COVID-19 OR coronavirus OR SARS-CoV-2 OR 2019-nCoV from December 1, 2019 to April 30, 2020. Studies having CeVD or stroke as one of the pre-existing comorbidities and described outcomes including intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation utilization, and mortality were selected with consensus of three reviewers. Following MOOSE protocol, 11 studies were included. The pooled prevalence of CeVD and outcomes were calculated. Meta-regression was performed, and correlation coefficient (r) and odds ratio (OR) were estimated to evaluate the effects of pre-existing CeVD on outcomes of COVID-19 patients. Meta-analysis with random-effects model was used to calculate OR along with its 95% CI from the studies containing data on composite poor outcome.

RESULTS

Out of 8/11 studies showing data on mortality and mechanical ventilation, and 7/11 on ICU admission, pooled prevalence of pre-existing CeVD was 4.4% (244/4987). In age-adjusted meta-regression analysis, pre-existing CeVD was associated with ICU admission [r: 0.60; OR: 1.82 (1.25-2.69)], mechanical ventilation [r: 0.29; OR: 1.33 (1.09-1.63)], and mortality [r: 0.35; OR: 1.42 (1.14-1.77)] amongst COVID-19 hospitalizations. 9/11 studies reported data on binary composite outcomes, the pooled prevalence of pre-existing CeVD was 4.3% (155/3603) and 7.46% (83/1113) amongst COVID-19 hospitalizations and COVID-19 hospitalization-related poor outcomes, respectively. In meta-analysis, COVID-19 patient with pre-existing CeVD had 2.67-fold (1.75-4.06) higher odds of poor outcomes.

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 patients with pre-existing cerebrovascular disease have poor outcomes and extra precautions should be taken in managing such patients during the ongoing pandemic.